Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – The renewed hostilities in Ethiopia’s Tigray region pose a significant threat not just to national stability but also to the Horn of Africa’s equilibrium. The growing support from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for Ethiopia’s federal government, contrasted with Saudi Arabia’s nuanced diplomatic approach, invites a closer look at the geopolitical dynamics at play.
The UAE: A Firm Yet Questionable Supporter
On September 25, the UAE publicly condemned the assaults by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and its allied factions against Ethiopian federal forces. They took a strong stand against the violence, particularly noting the seizure of airports in Tigray and escalating tensions in the Afar and Amhara regions. UAE Minister of State Sheikh Shakhboot bin Nahyan Al Nahyan expressed solidarity with the Ethiopian government and its citizens. He reaffirmed support for Ethiopia’s sovereignty, calling for an end to hostilities and urging all parties to adhere to the Pretoria Agreement.
The UAE is clear in its support for Ethiopia’s federal government, advocating for de-escalation and dialogue, yet it has not confirmed whether it will provide military assistance or leverage its influence to halt the fighting. Beyond political alignment, the UAE has commercial interests in the Horn of Africa. With Dubai Ports World operating Berbera port in Somaliland and established shipping routes facilitating trade with Ethiopia, the UAE’s interest in regional stability is tied to its economic investments. However, the actual ability of Abu Dhabi to influence the TPLF or steer Eritrea towards peace remains unproven.
Saudi Arabia: Balancing Act with Diplomatic Experience
Unlike the UAE, Saudi Arabia has not articulated a clear stance regarding the latest hostilities in Tigray. Current analyses highlight the kingdom’s earlier diplomatic efforts aimed at decreasing tensions between the Ethiopian government and the TPLF. Historically, Saudi Arabia has attempted to mediate issues between Ethiopia and Eritrea but faced challenges, including unmet negotiations concerning Ethiopia’s access to the Eritrean port of Assab.
Despite its regional shortcomings, Saudi Arabia’s broader alignment in the region holds significance. Recent reports have indicated that Saudi Arabia and Egypt may support Eritrea in its opposition to Ethiopia’s ambitions. However, this alignment does not equate to direct military support for Eritrea or the TPLF in the ongoing conflict. Saudi Arabia’s interests predominantly lie in maintaining Red Sea security, critical for international trade and oil exports. Whether the kingdom will take a more pronounced diplomatic role remains uncertain.
The Egyptian Factor: Complicated Relations
Egypt is also a key player in this complex situation, driven by its longstanding disputes with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Cairo’s ties with Eritrea have recently strengthened, with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi meeting Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki to discuss regional security concerns. These relationships further complicate the context of the conflict in Tigray.
Amidst rising tensions, Ethiopia has accused both Egypt and Sudan of supporting armed opposition groups, including the TPLF. However, Egypt firmly denies the allegations, underscoring its commitment to non-interference in Ethiopian matters. The existing rivalry between Egypt and Ethiopia touches broader issues of regional power dynamics and water rights, further complicating any resolution to the conflict.
Potential for Regional Escalation
The implications of the Tigray conflict extend beyond its borders, potentially resulting in a broader regional crisis. Ethiopia’s push for reliable maritime access has heightened tensions with Eritrea, which views such ambitions as an infringement on its sovereignty. As allegations of troop movements and cross-border support surface, the situation becomes increasingly volatile.
Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia have yet to demonstrate decisive leadership in de-escalating tensions. Their involvement will be judged not merely by their political statements or historical engagements but by tangible outcomes that lead to reduced hostilities and renewed negotiations. The Pretoria Agreement still serves as a framework for peace, yet the resurgence of violence highlights the significant hurdles that remain.